COA upholds ruling ordering refund of GSIS P6.9B salary increases

MANILA, Philippines – The Commission on Audit (COA) has upheld a decision disallowing P6.98 billion in salary increases granted to officials and employees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), denying motions for partial reconsideration filed by those held liable.

In an en banc ruling released on Thursday, May 28, the COA affirmed a December 7, 2023 decision and ordered full refund of the disallowed amount, saying GSIS funds come from member contributions of government personnel.

The COA also ruled that members of the GSIS Board of Trustees who approved Board Resolutions Nos. 264 in 1998, 239 in 1999, 108 in 2007, 137 in 2008 and 106 in 2009, which set revised salary scales, were liable for the increases.

Those held liable are as follows:

• Bernardino Abes
• Winston Garcia
• Jesse H. T. Andres
• Esperanza Ocampo
• Reynaldo Palmiery
• Raymundo Lapating
• Alejandro Roces
• Jesus Santos
• Mario Ramirez
• Hermogenes Concepcion
• Federico Pascual
• Leovegildo Arellano
• Elmer Bautista
• Leonora de Jesus
• Fulgencio Factoran
• Florino Ibañes
• Aida Nocete

A COA breakdown showed that 126 GSIS executives with salary grades 27 and above received P783.46 million in increases from 1998 to 2010 before payments were stopped, while 4,406 rank-and-file employees received P6.2 billion over the same period. 

Those who appealed the decision pointed out that the COA ruling was issued after an unjustified delay that violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, and argued that the GSIS has fiscal autonomy and the exclusive power to determine the compensation packages and benefits of its officers and employees.

But the COA en back stated: “It must be emphasized that GSIS funds are not private funds and they are imbued with public interest because they come from the contributions of its members. As the Supreme Court held in GSIS v. COA, GSIS is bound to keep in trust the money belonging to its members,” the Commission said.

The state auditors pointed out that the requirement of prior presidential approval serves as a safeguard against the abuse or misuse of funds by agencies and government entities not covered by the Salary Standardization Law.

“A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. Here, there is no proof showing that there is a deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the movants,” the COA stated as it rejected the claim that the delay was unjustified. – Rappler.com